Terrorism
Category:International_affairs Terrorism (General) Terrorism is bad, but it can in no way destroy our way of life in the same way that overreaching, liberty-infringing state action to stop terrorist acts certainly can. 85.216.71.229 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. Think of the respect the USA would have received from the rest of the world if we'd picked ourselves up, brushed ourselves off, and said, "No open society can guarantee perfect security. We have learned some lessons from this attack, but we will never give up the freedoms that make us great, even if it means we are attacked again. Instead, we will try our best to make sure that everyone in the world has the opportunity to share in our prosperity." Or something like that. --Kg6cvv 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Interesting thought but are you saying we should've just ignored the 9/11 attacks? Such talk is irational in today's society. People wanted revenge after those attacks, even someone like me who doesn't approve of revenge recognizes that. This country has a bad history of going to war with little or no provocation so it's overly idealistic to think that America would've not been angered by these acts. Terrorism can not be crushed with force but ignoring it doesn't works On this subject both irational fear of our government and irational fear of terrorists can be dangerous. --Pacotheparrot 06:25, 6 July 2006 :::No, I'm saying we should have taken our time and learned from them instead of jerking our knees and overreacting to the point that we only made the problems worse and reduced the respect of the rest of the world for the USA. IMHO legislators and their staffers, each of whom have incentives only to "do something" and not to actually be effective, and who have a huge stake in politics, were the last people who should have been recommending solutions to the problem. I believe the best solution to problems like this is to take a clue from the jury system and appoint a civil grand jury with a narrow, well-defined mission that can call witnesses and make recommendations, and who have no stake whatsoever in the political process. Their having no stake in the political process is what makes a civil grand jury different from "appointing a commission to study the problem."--Kg6cvv 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::Terrorism is the tool of the few to coerce the many. The strategy is centered around the response to attacks rather than the attack itself. While I would agree that not responding at all to the threat of terrorism is impractical, the point that is debatable is the response itself. If hijacking aircraft, bombing infrastructure, sneaking weapons through our ports, and crossing the border undetected were all made to be mostly impossible propositions then the threat of terrorism would have been addressed. Merely chasing ghosts around the globe would, at best, address this particular thread of terrorism and not the actual ability to conduct such attacks. I personally think we should be doing both but more defense than chasing. --Xageroth 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::"This country has a bad history of going to war with little or no provocation" I don't quiet understand that statment? Do you mean to say that what happened on 9-11 was little or no provocation? By that standard Pearl Harbor would need to be considerd little or no provocation and I don't think any reasonable thinking person would think that. What happened on 9-11 was an act of war. War was officially declaired on the USA by these terrorist several years before so by any defination it was an act of war. We are still at war today and I just don't understand how this could be considered "little or no provocation". When war is declared against a country and then that country is attacked it is in a state of war. --Seashell 18:43, 6 July 2006 :What is a terrorist? Is it "the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands."? Maybe so, but if so, then the invasion of Iraq is classed as terrorism. It forced the community to act in a certain way - whether that was to their benefit is another matter. It forced. :* Is it just the killing of civilians? Again, if so then most governments are terrorists. :* Is it just that *targeting* of civilians? Maybe, but if so then two out of the four airplanes on 9/11 do not count as terrorists, since they were targeting non-civilian targets. Does the fact that they knowingly killed civilians mean that they are? Well, I've got news - governments call that "collateral damage" when they do it, and they would admit that they do. :* So what separates terrorists from governments? The *unlawful* use or threatened use of force is terrorism. The ONLY difference between these two camps is the law. :* Does this make governments "terrorists"? No. Nothing so simple. :* Instead it belies a fundamental truth - that the use of the word is for propaganda purposes ONLY. It merely serves to provide a way for governments to define an enemy, which is done strictly for political purposes. Your mere use of the word helps them with this cause. :* Every time you use the word terrorist, you are helping them. Stop. 85.216.71.229 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Terrorism is not always used as a propaganda tool. When a small group of people take hostages and demand prisoners in some jail be released, or they will kill their hostages, that is not propaganda. Anphanax 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::You are correct about the usage of a terrorist act, but the grandparent was referring to the word itself.--62.255.32.14 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Clausewitz: War is continuation of politics by other means. The islamic terrorists have a political agenda and they take other, violent means to achieve those goals and thus it is right to speak of a war, even though the opponent does not dress in uniforms and claim to be a government. As I see it, the blurry line between terrorists and armies in war comes from the fact that soldiers wear uniforms, which clearly denote them as soldiers and that they do not explicitly target civilian population (which does not mean that civilian casualties do not happen). Terrorism Overemphasized Terrorism is by no means a leading cause of death in the U.S., however it recieves a disproportionate level of attention and funding. Maybe some cited statistics would be useful here on how terrorism is significantly less likely to affect you when compared to other common occurrences such as automobile accidents. ---- The difference between a car accident and terrorism, for instance, is that people feel they have some control. A car accident couldn't happen to them because they're a good driver. Terrorism is about controlling fear. ---- Of course, even good drivers get into accidents. The level of comfort you feel in a car is largely due to ignoring the dangers you are facing every second on the road. If we felt the same way about driving as we felt about terrorism, we'd have fifteen feet tall concrete barriers between lanes and have checkpoints every five miles to make sure you have correct documentation. The fear of terrorism is irrational, fueled by shocking events broadcast in full-color TV. Furthermore, fear is a great thing--it means you're still free. Terrorism is as old as anything else on this planet. Yet it is used to create fear (not only by those who commit it), and make people accept certain changes in their system, such as limiting your civil rights, or exceeding judicial powers. Terrorism as a symptom Whenever I see or hear the words "Weapons of Mass Destruction", I remember Dennis Kucinich's statement that Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction, Ignorance is a weapon of mass destruction, and Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. I hear on the news about this terrorist attack or that car bomb, and I recognize them for what they are, which is a symptom of a disease. People use terrorism as a 'Weapon of Mass Desparation, because every other way they have to demand a redress of grievences has been cut off. When I was diagnosed with cancer in 2003, I had been experiencing small pains throughout my body that I couldn't find a cause for. A rash here, pain in my joints, being extremely tired all the time, etc. Then I was diagnosed, and started chemo and radiation therapy. Now I'm fine, and I'm focused on keeping myself healthy and active, and paying attention to strange pains and annoyances. Because I know now that they are symptoms of something larger, something that could have killed me. When we hear about hunger, or a shortage of water, or political unrest, or terrorist attacks, what we are hearing about is the small pains in the human race that signal that something is wrong. We need to find the true cause, and fight it with everything we have. Fighting terrorism with armies and bombs is like treating a liver spot with acne cream. Chadlupkes 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I have to agree with terrorism as a symptom rather than a cause. I also agree that because people do not have the basics - food, shelter, water and clothing - this causes a lot of social stress. In the same way that sex is popular to do, and not to talk about, I think that ending poverty is popular to talk about and not to do. Charity - which is not just giving money to church - has never really been popular or cool, and I don't think it can be. What if the root cause of these problems was, say, greed? This might be too marxist for some people to swallow, but simply identifying the problem will not solve it. At the same time I think there needs to be a major theoretical groundwork laid so that people can understand these problems in a real context: as symptoms, rather than the cause themselves. But that understanding should push individuals towards actions, not philosophical debate. :As for the government and my country, I love the place. I / You / We have to realize that there are places in the world that you can't practice your own religion, you are not safe at night, businesses aren't run by "fair" practices and much more. But I do not use patriotism to rubber stamp everything my country does. I love my country too much to see it's errors continue. And this is where I think the left and the right (if these labels even mean anything) get it wrong. I believe that people don't fanatically attack others for no reason, and if my country's army is the hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Maybe I'm skipping around too much, but is foolish to wish that all the money spent on war could / will be spent on humanitarian aid - for their country or ours? I simultaneously realize how awesome and unrealistic this would be, and maybe my reality is based on the fact that I don't like the idea of other people dying. And I think that is the crux of the issue: killing is so much more than just shooting someone. You can kill someone by allowing terrible living conditions to exist, by forcing an economic situation that doesn't allow people to eat, by producing products that are unsafe... Regardless of religion, I think that people can come together around the idea that human life is sacred. Terrorist, who in another time or place would be soldiers, have such a warped reality that it is truly sad they can just end life on a whim, be it their's or other's. I think these people need help, and that definitly does not come in the shape of a bullet. --Bubaflub 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Terrorism Probably Does Not Exist At least not as we are lead to "know" it. There are no large terrorist organisations looking to do great harm in the U.S. Or, if there are, they are utterly incompetent and can be disregarded. Where does this logic come from? Here is the way the concept works: * There have been just many perfect opportunities in recent memory (katrina aftermath, for example) whereby a properly executed terrorist campaign could have devistating effects, even a very small one, like a handful of letter bombings in the right direction. * Considering that two barely educated men and a rifle could so completely terrorize the Washington DC area for weeks just a few years ago, clearly the "cost" of being a terrorist is as low the price of a hunting rifle, and box of ammo, and a beat up car... Putting this all together, we see a pattern, or a lack of one. Logically, this does not make sense. If it's cheap to pull off a terror campaign, if it requires essentially no resources whatsoever more than a couple of guys, if there are tons of great opportunities, and you aren't jumping at them, then you aren't a terrorist group with any ambition or competence. The end result is simply that 9/11 was a fluke at best. --Gnovos 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)